








/ 
















































































































<1 


— 




CONSIDERATIONS 


ON THE USE OV 


THE PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY, 


ADDRESSED TO THE 


RELIGIOUS SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. 


SECOND EDITION 


PHILADELPHIA: 
MFRRIHRVV AND THOMPSON, PRINTERS, 
No. 7 Carter’s Alley. 

1845. 































% 























t 




































% 









% 






CONSIDERATIONS 


ON THE USE OF 

THE PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY, 


ADDRESSED TO THE 


DELICIOUS SOCIETY OP FRIENDS. 


SECOND EDITION 


'■hoards 

• i ) 


> ue-f. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

PKINTAD BT MliHHIlItW AND THOMPSON, 

No. 7 Carter’s Alley. 


1845. 








.ff 45f 

, IS4-S 



A. faithful testimony was borne against holding slaves 
by individuals -in the-Society of Friends, long before the 
Society itself was prepared to adopt, such a testimony as 
a duty connected with pure Christianity. For a century 
past, numerous individuals have maintained a further tes¬ 
timony against slavery, by abstaining from the use of its 
productions,and thereby avoided contributing to its support; 
but, as a body , the Society has not yet adopted abstinence 
from the produce of slave labour as one of its testimonies. 

Believing that the principles of the Society, faithfully and 
consistently carried out, would lead to this abstinence, the 
compiler has felt constrained to offer the following u Con¬ 
siderations’ 5 to the calm, serious, and unprejudiced atten¬ 
tion of his fellow-members. He has availed himself of 
arguments and observations which he has found in the 
printed and manuscript correspondence of other persons; 
hence the variety of style and the recurrence of similar 
or nearly similar ideas, which may be observed in the 


compilation. 

Blocklcy } near Fhiladclphia. 


S. Rhoads. 




CONSIDERATIONS, &c. 


In the early settlement of America, when there 
was little known of the manner in which slaves 
were procured in Africa, and the purchase of them 
here was deemed favourable to both master and 
slave, Friends not only purchased and held slaves, 
but even engaged in the foreign slave-trade. At 
a very early period a few Friends were enlight¬ 
ened to see the sinfulness of this trade, and after 
long and arduous labours with their brethren the 
practice was condemned. Our worthy forefathers, 
however, continued to hold their slaves in bond¬ 
age, because they had not sufficiently examined 
the subject in the Light of Truth : for when in the 
course of a long series of years they became con¬ 
vinced that this practice also was wrong, they 
united in abolishing it. Our Society having thus 
cleared itself of the sin of owning slaves, yet finds 
that millions of them are held in cruel bondage by 
our fellow-citizens and by the inhabitants of some 
other countries; and now, the very serious and 
awfully important question arises—whether in our 
commercial intercourse with these, or in paying 
the slaveholders for, and partaking of, that which 
they cruelly and wrongfully exact from their 
1 * 


4 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


Slaves, we are in any degree encouraging the 
atrocious system or enjoying its fruits. 

That deeply instructed and faithful servant of 
Christ, John Woolman, declared “ the trading in 
or frequent use of any produce known to be raised 
by the labours of those [slaves] who are under 
such lamentable oppression, hath appeared to be 
a subject which may yet require the more serious 
consideration of the humble followers of Christ, 
ihe prince of peace. After long and mournful 
exercise, I" am now free to mention how things 
have opened in my mind, with desires that if it 
may please the Lord further to open his will to 
any of his children in this matter , they may 
faithfully follow him in such further manifesta¬ 
tion .” 

It is well known that John Woolman declined 
the use of the productions of the labour of slaves, 
and that from his day down to the present, the 
same testimony has been upheld by many of our 
most prominent and worthy members. Believing 
that the time of which he spoke has arrived when 
this subject demands our “most serious considera¬ 
tion,” and that the present state of slavery and 
the continued horrors of the foreign and domestic 
slave-trade loudly call us to faithfulness in this 
matter, we feel concerned to address our brethren 
in relation to it. 

“ Deep-rooted customs, though wrong, are not 
easily altered; but it is the duty of every one to 
be firm in that which they certainly know is right 
for them.” “ As men obtain reputation by their 
profession of the Truth, their virtues are men- 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 5 

tioned as arguments in favour of general error; 
and those of less note to justify themselves, say, 
such and such good men did the like.” “ Cus¬ 
toms generally approved, and opinions received 
by youth from their superiors, become, like the 
natural produce of a soil, especially when they 
-a are suited to favourite inclinations; but as the 
judgments of God, by which the state of the soul 
must be tried, are without partiality, it would be 
the highest wisdom to forego customs and popular # 
opinions, and try the treasures of the soul by the 
infallible standard, Truth.”— Woolman. 

In reference to slavery itself, John Woolman 
inquires, “ whence is it that men who believe in a 
righteous omnipotent Being, to whom all nations 
stand equally related and are equally accountable, 
remain so easy in it, but that they do not discuss 
this matter with that candour and freedom of 
thought , which the case justly calls for?” and 
this, we believe, is one great reason why so many 
now remain easy in a custom which is the main 
support of slavery—the use of its productions. 

“ Christ, our holy leader, graciously continueth 
to open the understandings of his people, and ns 
circumstances alter from age to age, some who 
are deeply baptised into a feeling of the state of 
things are led by his Holy Spirit into exercises in 
some respects different from those which attended 
the faithful in foregoing ages”—“ and from a 
clear convincement, may see the relation of one 
thing to another , and the necessary tendency of 
each; and hence it may be absolutely binding on 
them to desist from some parts of conduct , which 
1 * 


6 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


some good men have been in.”— Woolman. Thus 
it was in regard to a participation in the slave- 
trade and in slavery, and thus it is as respects the 
support of slavery by using its productions. 

“ Under a solemn sense of the awful load of 
guilt which is impending over our beloved coun¬ 
try, and of our share in the responsibility , may 
we seriously and impartially examine what is re¬ 
quired at our hands.” “ If our hearts are soft¬ 
ened and expanded by the love of God, we shall 
be prepared to view these oppressed people as 
children of the same Almighty Father, equally 
with ourselves the objects of His divine regard, 
and of that salvation which comes by Jesus Christ; 
and thus be enabled to enter into a lively feeling 
of the miseries and hardships they endure; to put 
our souls in their souls’ stead, and in singleness of 
heart to follow every clear opening of duty in 
their behalf, whatever sacrifice it may cost us, 
either of worldly treasure or popularity .”— 
Yearly Meeting Minute, 1839. 

Let us then inquire by what means the vast 
and atrocious system of slavery is maintained, and 
upon whom the responsibility of its continuance 
rests. The whole system is composed of parts 
necessarily connected with and dependent upon 
each other:—viz. man-stealing; slave-trading ; 
slave-holding; buying and using the productions 
of slavery. We all acknowledge that a tremen¬ 
dous load of guilt rests somewhere. Is it upon 
the poor, ignorant, heathen Chief in Africa, who 
attacks a neighbouring tribe and seizes his misera¬ 
ble victims for the slave-trader? Is it upon him 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


7 


who in performing his share of the dreadful busi¬ 
ness, furnishes the slaveholder with “ human chat¬ 
tels ?” Does the slaveholder in retaining them in 
bondage, incur the whole guilt of the system? 
For what does slavery, with all its abominations, 
exist ? Its gains. What supports slavery ? The 
use of its productions. If, therefore, there was 
no contributor to its gains—no purchaser of its 
productions, it would of necessity cease. Is he 
guiltless who furnishes the incentive for its con¬ 
tinuance and the means of its support ? 

In this view of the subject, how plain is the 
course which our duty as Christians points out! 
“ Cease to do evil“ do justly “ thou shalt be 
far from oppression “ be not partakers of other 
men’s sins“ cleanse your hands, ye sinners 
“ all things, whatsoever ye would that men should 
do unto you, do ye even so to them.” 

If, indeed, slavery is the most monstrous evil of 
the times, wicked in itself, and dreadful in its con¬ 
sequences—depriving, in this country alone, nearly 
three millions of human beings of their right to 
act out the ends for which an all-wise and boun¬ 
tiful Creator formed them; stifling His spirit in 
their hearts, and when through darkness it mani¬ 
fests itself, disabling them from following its re¬ 
quisitions; making, as far as human enactments 
and customs can make, the slave-master the slaves’ 
God, and the slave, not a man created in God’s 
image, but a chattel, a brute, a tool—not his own, 
but his master’s:—if, indeed, slavery thus tram¬ 
ples under foot the highest principles of moral 
obligation, ought not all to avoid upholding it? 


8 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


And should not Friends especially, who, above 
others, profess to be very delicate in their percep¬ 
tions of right , and firm in their adherence to it, 
refuse to sustain it by any means ? 

In a “ Minute on Slavery, 5 ’ issued by the Phila¬ 
delphia Yearly Meeting in 1839, we find the fol¬ 
lowing paragraphs: viz .—“ The close connexion 
and intimate intercourse which are maintained be¬ 
tween the different sections of our common coun¬ 
try, through the diversified and widely spread 
channels of commerce and business, may, unless 
we are very watchful, blunt our sensibilities to 
the cruelties of slavery and diminish our abhor¬ 
rence of its injustice. We wish tenderly to incite 
our dear friends to an individual inquiry, with a 
single eye to the pointings of Truth, how far they 
are clear in these respects; and should such an 
examination awaken serious apprehensions as to 
any part of their traffic, that they may be willing 
to forego every prospect of gain, arising from the 
prosecution of business, which is incompatible with 
the purity of our religious profession. 5 ’ 

What connexion and intercourse are here al¬ 
luded to ? Those with slaveholders. What part 
of their traffic is it that Friends may seriously 
apprehend is incompatible with the purity of their 
religious profession ? That composed of the pro¬ 
ductions of slave labour. Here then is the prin¬ 
ciple distinctly recognized by our Yearly Meeting, 
that a traffic in the productions of slavery tends 
to blunt our sensibilities to its cruelties, and di¬ 
minish our abhorrence of its injustice, and may be 
found incompatible with the purity of our religious 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


9 


profession; how then can the use of these produc¬ 
tions be consistently indulged in or advocated? 
What difference exists in principle between our 
purchasing a bale of slave grown cotton, or a 
hogshead of slave made sugar, to sell it again for 
the support of our families, and our purchasing 
the same article to be used in them ? Does the 
turpitude of the transaction consist in our selling 
to another that which we may innocently use 
ourselves. 

“ Seed sown with the tears of a confined, op¬ 
pressed people—harvests cut dowm by an over¬ 
borne, discontented reaper, make bread less sw r eet 
to the taste of an honest man, than that which is 
the produce or just reward of such voluntary ac¬ 
tion as is a proper part of the business of human 
creatures.”— Woolman. 

If our moral sense would revo’t at holding a 
slave ourselves, it should also revolt at another’s 
holding one. 

If it would revolt at using the unpaid toil of 
him we might so hold, it should also revolt at 
using the unpaid toil of him who is held by an¬ 
other. 

/ It is no argument for our partaking of the fruit 
of crime, that if we do not partake of it others 
will; and as therefore our abstinence will not ar¬ 
rest or mitigate the evil, we may innocently derive 
from it a good to ourselves. We do not know 
the premises to be true. God has made us moral 
instruments, and we are to act as the medium 
through which His ends are to be accomplished. 
So far as our means extend, we are to combat 


10 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


evil, as if its extirpation depended on our indi¬ 
vidual action. Does slavery exist lor its gains, 
and would it cease if there were no purchaser of 
its productions? If the answer be affirmative, 
could I, let each of us inquire, morally be the 
purchaser? Could I innocently hold up one end 
of a system which the slaveholder at the other 
would in vain attempt to sustain without me ? 
Does the circumstance that several join me in the 
purchase, make it right for me to do that connec- 
tively, which to do singly was wrong ! Do num¬ 
bers annihilate responsibility, and make me a vir¬ 
tuous partner in the mighty aggregate of wicked¬ 
ness? 

That the slave-trade and slavery exist only by 
reason of the use of the produce of s'ave labour— 
to obtain which is the sole end of the slave-trade, 
whether foreign or domestic, and of slavery with 
all its abominations—is so plain to every under¬ 
standing, that it may be assumed as self-evident. 
Indeed, it is universally acknowledged that as 
respects manufactures, and the products of the 
earth raised by the labour of whites 9 the consumer 
who pays his money for such articles is the great 
supporter of those productions; and of course, the 
same rule must be admitted in respect to the pro¬ 
ductions of the labour of blacks. 

If the institution of slavery were now to be 
commenced, knowing its character as we do, men 
of pure minds would revolt instinctively at using 
the productions of the labour of a fellow-being 
seized to be a slave, and retained in that condition 
for the sake of giving existence to these produc- 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


11 


tions. They would just as much refuse to con¬ 
nect themselves with the end proposed by such an 
outrage, as they would the beginning of a purpose 
looking to that end. Habit, the foe or friend of 
virtue, according to the direction it takes, may 
blind us in some degree to the wrongfulness of 
this use, but it can never make the use right, or 
justify us in the mal-practice whilst there is left to 
us the moral faculty of recurring to first principles, 
or of putting ourselves feelingly into the condition 
of the sufferers whose woes and bonds the use oc¬ 
casions and continues. Without bringing the ques¬ 
tion nearer home than would be presented by the 
case of the poor Indian with whom we sympathise 
—let slavery be added to his existing wrongs; let, 
not his hands only, but also his soul, mind and 
body, be taken to the use of the usurper—under 
whatever solemnity of law—and no sophistry could 
disguise from us his crime who would consent to 
use the avails of that crushing tyranny. When 
the cupidity of the whites shall have seized on the 
last hunting grounds of our red brethren, and, in 
accordance with the popular doctrine that “ two 
races cannot co-exist on the same soil but in the 
relation of master and slave,” the remnant, which 
the vices and the swords of the intruders may 
have spared of the hereditary owners of the Ame¬ 
rican soil, shall be doomed to slavery, will Friends 
shake hands with the oppressor, or shall we spurn 
from us the productions of the new and horrible 
robbery? If, as we believe, they would with one 
voice be rejected, how can we now receive and 
use productions of exactly the same character? 


12 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


But it is objected:—“ God blesses the produce 
of the slaves’ labour, and therefore in refusing to 
partake of it we do wrong, and call in question 
His goodness and His mercy.” It is true His 
rain descends upon the just and the unjust; are 
we therefore to be partakers of the sins of the un¬ 
just? His light guides the robber to the work of 
evil—the murderer to the deed of death; are we 
hence to conclude that the robber and the mur¬ 
derer are right, or that we may innocently par¬ 
take of the fruits of their deeds? 

The inference from God’s blessing the slaves’ 
labour, if just, would be more comprehensively ex¬ 
pressed thus: God has blessed the labour of slaves, 
therefore the holding of slaves is right! But the 
rice, cotton and tobacco plants, the sugar cane and 
all other plants which are cultivated by slaves, 
grow in accordance with a law which was estab¬ 
lished by the Almighty when he said, “ Let the 
earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and 
the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose 
seed is in itself upon the earth.” Now His laws 
of nature are unalterable, except by His special 
intervention; and are we to conclude that because 
He does not thus interpose, and by a miracle blast 
all the plants cultivated by slaves, He therefore 
regards their labour with His especial favour and 
blessing! And because He does not send down 
fire from Heaven to destroy the oppressor—the 
slaveholder—that therefore He blesses slavery! 
God blesses the labour of all, both freemen and 
slaves, in contemplation of His having benevolent¬ 
ly given to the cultivator of the soil, the produc- 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


13 


tion of the sweat of his face. God changes not; it is 
man who perverts and misuses JHis blessings. 
“ When the earth is planted and tilled, and the 
fruits brought forth are applied to support un¬ 
righteous purposes; here the gracious design of 
infinite goodness in these his gifts being perverted, 
the earth is defiled, and the complaint formerly ut¬ 
tered becomes applicable, 4 Thou hast made me to 
serve with thy sins, thou hast wearied me with 
thine iniquities.’ ”— Woolman. 

We assert for man an ownership in the produc¬ 
tion of his own toil, unless alienated by his direct 
or implied consent; the exception being an affirma¬ 
tion of the doctrine. The freeman cannot raise 
his arm to do an act of labour but that h e feels 
the truth of this ownership. The Christian can¬ 
not read the history of man’s fall and the accom¬ 
panying promises, without perceiving that in the 
sentence w r hich connected labour with his condi¬ 
tion,— 44 in the sw r eat of thy face shalt thou eat 
bread,”—the fruit of it was given to him. Thus 
both natural and revealed law accord to man the 
produce of his labour. It is true, that man in so¬ 
ciety parts with some of his rights that others 
may be the better secured; and thus is the prim¬ 
itive law rightfully modified by parties to the 
social compact, and is so modified in the matter of 
labour: though the justice of natural law is often 
affirmed in the granting of specific liens on work¬ 
manship performed. But shall the slave’s right be 
mystified by the plea of having surrendered some 
of his rights that others may be assured to him ? 
Who is he? An outlaw ! What is he in con- 


14 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


templation of the social law? A chattel! What 
are his rights in that relation? He has none— 
not even the right to con plain of being treated as 
the beasts that perish ! He has no lot in the social 
arrangement. The fruits, then, of the sweat of 
his brow belong to him, and he that takes them 
from him commits a robbery ; not the less true or 
monstrous because sanctified by law. What, in 
this view cf the case, are the rights of the slave¬ 
holder to the produce of the slave’s labour ? Can 
he create ownership to it by selling it to us ? Can 
we honestly buy it ? 

It is objected to the doctrine which rejects the 
use of slave produce, that “ it cannot be carried 
out, and therefore is not a principle having its 
foundation in the Truth.” The same objection 
applies with equal force to a testimony against 
war; it might also he app'ied to other doctrines 
of morality. But shall we, for these objections, 
commit war, by giving it encouragement when we 
can avoid it ? Must we commit acts of dishonesty 
or other immorality, when we can freely act to the 
contrary? Must we forego all good, because we 
cannot accomplish every good ? 

The use of gold and silver (some of which is 
taken from the mines by slaves) is particularly 
charged as an inconsistency, and as a proof that 
it is impracticable to avoid the use of the produc¬ 
tions of slavery. Now it is well known that dur¬ 
ing war, more or less go'd and silver coin is found 
in prize-ships, and of course is thrown into gene¬ 
ral circulation ; and those who refuse to purchase 
prize-goods which, by inquiry, may be identified 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. Vj 

as such, do not decline the use of coin because a 
portion of it, which cannot by any means be dis¬ 
tinguished, has been obtained in war. These cases 
are sufficiently parallel to show, that if in the first 
we are justifiable in using all articles procured 
wrongfully in slavery; in the latter, we may law¬ 
fully purchase prize-goods of every description. 
As a general fact, it is easier to avoid the produc¬ 
tions of slavery, which are limited to a few articles, 
than those of war, which have no such limitation; 
yet no one contends that the avoidance of the pro¬ 
ductions of war is less a duty than the avoidance 
of the productions of slavery. 

Some say “ there must be as great an evil in par¬ 
taking of productions made through oppression, 
whether free or otherwise, for all oppression must 
he wrong.” In reply to this, we may, in the 
first place, suggest that a remarkable difference 
exists in regard to the effects of using the produc¬ 
tions of the two classes alluded to. Let us take 
the British manufacturers for instance; a class 
generally compared by certain writers, with Ame¬ 
rican slaves. What is the effect upon their condi¬ 
tion of our using the productions of their labour? 
Why just in proportion to the increase of that use, 
and the consequent increase of demand, is the con¬ 
dition of the labourer improved, and his oppression 
lessened. The greater the demand for his labour, 
the higher are his wages; and his means of comfort 
and enjoyment are proportionalVy increased. 
Thus the more we use of the productions of his la¬ 
bour, the greater is the benefit we bestow upon 
him. But how does our use of the productions of 


16 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


slavery affect the condition of the slave? When 
do the slaves in point of acknowledged fact fare 
the worst ? When there is a brisk market for the 
productions of their unrequited toil. It is then 
that the whip is incessantly applied—then that 
the slaves are forced to labour twenty hours out 
of every twenty-four—then that the loss of ten to 
twenty per cent, of his slaves annually by over¬ 
work is disregarded by the slaveholder ! And when 
does the slave fare the best ? When the demand 
for the produce of his labour stagnates. The oft 
heard prayer of the slave, who, in the simplicity 
of his heart, asks of his Heavenly Father that 
cotton may be low, speaks volumes to this point. 

Secondly. We do not object to the use of the 
productions of slavery, merely or principally, on 
the ground of the oppression, or of any abuses to 
which the slaves are liable ; but because slavery 
is in itself inherently and necessari y sinful: and 
herein it differs from all systems of mere oppres¬ 
sion. Without referring at all to the abuses of 
slavery, let us inquire how, as by law established, 
it necessarily affects the slave. 

“ 1st. It debars an immortal and accountable 
being, charged with no crime, from the pursuit of 
happiness, and reduces him to an article of mer¬ 
chandise. 

“ 2d. It dooms his posterity to degradation and 
bondage. 

“3d. It annihilates the marriage relation by re¬ 
fusing to acknowledge it, and authorises the master 
to separate those whom God hath joined. 

“4th. It annihilates the parental relation by 


PRODUCTIONS Or SLAVERY. 


17 


transferring to the master the authority given by 
God to the parent, and authorising him to sell the 
children like cattle in the market. 

“ 5th. It annihilates the right of conscience ; 
giving to the master the entire dominion over 
the time and conduct of the slave .”—Judge 
Jay . 

These properties of slavery are essential , consti¬ 
tuent elements of the system. Take any one of 
them away, and it cannot exist. The sin of sla¬ 
very then consists not so much in the cruelty of 
the master, as in the annihilation of the rights of 
human nature. It has been, we apprehend, with 
such views as these, and on such principles, that 
our religious Society has discriminated between 
the system of slavery and other oppressions, and 
has felt bound to hold up a peculiar testimony 
against it. 

It is said, “if the principle of abstinence was 
carried out, many persons would have to leave 
their accustomed business and seek new employ¬ 
ment ; trade itself would be subjected to a convul¬ 
sion, the extent of which could not be foreseen.” 
So thought the shrine-makers at Ephesus when 
the light of Christianity dawned upon them! 
Shall we, for such reasons, or in contemplation of 
any privation or difficulty, serve mammon rather 
than God ? And is He, who so loved us that he 
gave for us his only begotten Son, to make all the 
sacrifice? 

We are told that in refusing to use the produce 
of slave labour, we adopt a compulsory measure, 
and undertake to “ coerce” the slaveholder to lib¬ 
s’' 


18 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


erate his s’aves. If there was any force or truth 
in this objection, it would also apply to our testi¬ 
mony against supporting war. On what principle 
do we decline purchasing articles captured in war? 
Not to “ coerce” nations into peace, but to wash 
our own hands in innocency from the blood of our 
fellow men, and as a testimony against the injustice 
of using property that has been wrested from the 
rightful owners by violence. John Woolman used 
such coercion towards the slaveholders ; such coer¬ 
cion the Christian must ever use when he with¬ 
draws his countenance and support from crime. Is 
it compulsion to refuse to purchase a stolen jewel 
of a thief, or contraband goods of a smuggler ? Is 
it compulsion to refuse to share in the plunder of 
a pirate, or to ho'd fellowship with the oppressor? 
Those who object to abstinence from the produc¬ 
tions of slavery on the plea that it is a coercive 
measure, should remember that by using those 
productions they enable the slaveholder to coerce 
his slaves into a condition of cruel bondage, and 
deprive them of their rights as human beings! 

If a refusal to purchase the productions of sla¬ 
very while it is legal , and the slaveholders are not 
convinced of its sinfulness, be justly considered an 
improperly coercive measure, how can we avoid 
placing the conduct of our forefathers in the same 
light, when they refused to purchase the miserable 
victims of the foreign slave-trade, while it was 
sanctioned and encouraged by law, and the traders 
still viewed it as a legitimate branch of commerce? 
Or, how can we ask, or approve a law to prevent, 
by prohibitory enactments, the continuance of the 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


19 


domestic slave-trade or any other immoral act, 
while those engaged in it remain insensible of its 
sinfulness ? 

God has commanded us “ not to be partakers in 
other men’s sins ;” and surely if He regards with 
displeasure the slaveholder, whose education and 
habits from early childhood have tended to weak¬ 
en his abhorrence of oppression, and cause him to 
regard slavery, if not as a righteous institution, at 
least as a necessary evil; how can we, who have 
seen its iniquity and felt for the captive’s wrong; 
who are professedly anxious for its overthrow, and 
yet join hands with the oppressor—upholding him 
in his sin, and sharing in his plunder—expect to be 
found guiltless in His sight ? 

But an apology for the use of slave produce is 
sought for in the precepts given by the apostle 
Paul to the Corinthians, respecting the use of 
meats dedicated to idols, and peculiar to the isola¬ 
ted case of idol worship. The advocates of sla¬ 
very itself represent Paul as justifying it, when he 
sent back to Philemon his near kinsman and con¬ 
fidential servant, Onesimus, with directions to re¬ 
ceive him, “ not now as a servant, but above a ser¬ 
vant) a brother beloved, both in the flesh and in 
the Lord,” adding, “ If he hath -wronged thee 
or oweth thee aught, put that on mine account; 
I Paul have written it with my own hand, I will 
repay it.” 

With equal fairness has his doctrine forbidding 
the use of meats offered unto idols, when the dedi¬ 
cation was known, yet allowing their use when it 
was unknown, and prohibiting inquiry as to such 


20 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


dedication, been taken out of its legitimate case 
and construed into a general rule of morality; 
and the direction belonging to that case, “ What¬ 
soever is sold in the shambles, that eat, ask¬ 
ing no question for conscience sake,” convert¬ 
ed into an aphorism for the common purposes of 
life, in our daily intercourse with the wickedness 
abounding in the world, to the great prejudice of 
sound morality. 

It is obvious the rule must extend to all cases 
of things procured wrongfully, if it is made to ap¬ 
ply to any case of things so procured. Thus un¬ 
der cover of it, no matter what circumstances of 
atrocity, violence or fraud may have attended the 
procurement of an article; no matter what sus¬ 
picions may have assailed our minds, as to the 
bad concomitants of such procurement, if we 
keep ourselves prudently ignorant of the express 
facts, we may innocently buy and enjoy the 
thing! This has been termed a Christian lib¬ 
erty ! Pagan freedom, with an honest purpose, 
w r ould disdain the privilege : but pagan or pseudo- 
christian, it falls to pieces by the weight of its own 
enormity! 

The true meaning of the Apostle rises above 
this miserable system of connivance with wrong. 
The brethren converted from heathenism were in 
perpetual danger when there was presented to 
them food which they knew to be dedicated to an 
idol, of relapsing into the condition of idolaters; 
momentarily, it may be presumed, but still with 
great prejudice to their confirmation in true piety. 
There was nothing appertaining to the food itself. 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


2) 


produced by the dedication, which made its use 
criminal. The evil, wholly a mental one, existed 
in the knowledge of the dedication, which opera¬ 
ting on infirm consciences, tended to re-excite in 
the minds of the converted brethren those feelings 
of false worship which had been habitual to them 
on eating food so consecrated. Under these cir¬ 
cumstances, it was the part of true wisdom to 
prohibit the inquiry after that knowledge, which, 
when acquired, might be a snare and temptation ; 
as it also was, though in a greater degree, to pro¬ 
hibit the use of the food when the knowledge of its 
dedication had arrived. Let Paul be heard in ex¬ 
planation of his own rule : “ As concerning there¬ 
fore the eating of those things that are offered 
in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is 
nothing in the world, and that there is none other 
God but one. How be it, there is not in 
every man that knowledge, for some with con¬ 
science of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing 
offered unto an idol; and their conscience being 
weak, is defiled.” 

It is a general remark that “ if we do not pur¬ 
chase and use the products of the slave’s labour, 
their masters will not be able to feed them, and 
they must starve.” This is overlooking the 
main question whether such use is right or 
wrong, and acting on the false principle, that 
“ the end justifies the means.” If such use be 
wrong, no g*>od consequences resulting from'it, 
can make it right. But to assert that the slaves 
must starve if we do not purchase the products 
of their labour, is assuming a fact without proof 


22 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


and against probability. Will the diminution 
of demand for these products give them more 
or less time to raise the food necessary to their 
own existence ? Cut off wholly the demand for 
these productions, will it cut off the right arm of 
the slave—that power of labour which his Crea¬ 
tor gave him by w T hich to raise his daily food ? 
Will the master, from sheer depravity, compel 
his slaves to be idle and to starve, because others 
will not buy of him the productions of extorted la¬ 
bour? 

But suppose the slave would starve unless we 
contributed to his support: the question then arises 
in what way shall we so contribute as to make 
justice and benevolence coincident? To answer 
this let us take a sufficiently parallel case. A man 
engaged in a piratical trade, sustains by it his wife 
and an innocent family of children. He applies 
to us to buy of him his ill-gotten wares, which we 
refuse to do on principle. He then urges that 
those who are dependent on him must starve, un¬ 
less he can take back with him the means of sup¬ 
plying them with food. The appeal is made to us 
in such sincerity as to lead us to inquire how we 
can make our sense of immutable justice, and our 
inclination to succour the innocent and helpless, to 
act together consistently. What would be our 
necessary conclusion? Ob iously this: to con¬ 
tinue to reject the goods, and yet to give gratuit¬ 
ously the aid which we should deem due to the 
occasion. 

Let us trace out the reasonable consequences 
of disusing the produce of slave-labour. “ Supply 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


23 


follows demand .” This is an undisputed axiom 
of commerce, and within the limits of a physical abi¬ 
lity to furnish the supply, is as true as that “ shade 
follows substance.” The manner of the supply is 
just as much under the control of the demander 
as the matter , provided he is willing to pay a fair 
equivalent for the manner. Commerce is without 
a conscience of its own, yet bows to the dictation 
of its customer’s conscience. It is then the index 
to that conscience. The consideration here involv¬ 
ed indicates a two-fold duty—to demand that 
which is just in the manner of its procurement, 
and to avoid that which is unjustly procured. The 
business of the Christian’s life is to struggle for 
the advancement of virtuous principles and to dis¬ 
courage the opposite. Individuals in various 
places appreciating this truth, refuse to be acces¬ 
sary to a creation of a demand for goods produced 
by slave-labour. Each of such individuals has 
his own numerical value, besides his moral influ¬ 
ence extending around him, and adding ones, 
tens and hundreds to the espousal of the doctrine 
that it is unjust to use those productions, and a 
decided impression is made on the market for slave 
goods. No slave-holder would add to his slaves 
under a decaying demand for the productions of 
slavery. Hence amc gst the first fruits of absti¬ 
nence from their use, we should expect to see 
some ships, ceasing to be freighted for the slave- 
trade ; some wars ceasing to be created on the 
African coast; some of the “ thousand daily vic¬ 
tims” ceasing to be offered to the Moloch of Sla¬ 
very ; some of the. home nurseries for propagating 


24 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


men as cattle ceasing to exist; but all this unac¬ 
companied by starvation. Men do not starve 
because sl^veships rot; because there are no wars 
in Africa; because fewer die in the middle passage 
and in seasoning, or because men are less encou¬ 
raged to the rearing of domestic slaves. 

Thus the first impression, it is seen, would be 
on the outskirts of slavery, and would prevent 
starving and other suggested miseries to our species. 
The slaveholders, seeing the approach towards 
them of a more elevated public sentiment, would 
meet the change—not by starving their miserable 
slaves into some new submissions,—but by chang¬ 
ing their condition from chattels to men. This 
change would be commenced, doubtlessly, by a 
few of the most enlightened slaveholders, with 
whom the history of the transition of the British 
West Indian slaves into the state of freemen, 
stripped now of all gorgon terrors, is familiar; 
and perceiving there is really an honest testi¬ 
mony abroad against slavery which refuses all 
participation in its fruits, and which they had 
previously suspected to be false because of the 
short coming of the proclaimers of that testi¬ 
mony, they will enter themselves into the spirit 
of the reform, and meet the sentiment in its 
fulness. The example of these would spread, 
as did the testimony among the non-slavehold¬ 
ers against the use of slave produce ; and com¬ 
mensurate to the growth with us of this 
testimony would be the voluntary extension by 
them of enlightened and happy freedom to 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


25 


slaves now groaning under a dark and merciless 
bondage. 

In the support of their testimony against war, 
Friends are accustomed to act on principle. 
They do not say, we must pay taxes to sup¬ 
port war ; we must buy goods taken in ivar , 
and render it all the aid in our power short of 
fighting ourselves :—otherwise an enemy may 
come and burn our cities, lay waste our country 
and destroy our wives and children. But in 
regard to their testimony against slavery, their 
conduct and their language proclaim—it is in¬ 
deed wrong for us to hold slaves ; but while 
others hold them and are not convinced of the 
sinfulness of the custom, it would not be right 
lor us to withdraw our support from them, or 
to refuse to buy goods taken wrongfully and by 
violence in slavery :—otherwise the masters 
and their families may suffer many inconveni¬ 
ences and the slaves must starve. Why this 
difference in our practice ? Why do we act on 
on principle and in faith in one case, and on 
our notions of expediency and a calculation of 
consequences, in the other ? 

In the “ Ancient Testimony’’ recently pub¬ 
lished by Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, al¬ 
luding to the payment of the pecuniary demands 
in lieu of military trainings, it is justly said, 
“ However remote the connection may seem be¬ 
tween the payment of such a fine and the cruel 
operations of active warfare, they are parts of 
the same iniquitous system.” Surely if we 
were not blinded by custom and self-interest, 
3 


26 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


we would perceive that the connection between 
the traffic and use of the productions of slavery 
on the one hand, and the cruelties and insepa¬ 
rable wickedness of slave-trading and slave¬ 
holding on the ether, is still more intimate and 
direct, and that they are truly and necessarily 
“ parts of the same iniquitous system.” 

Wars are not entered into simply for the 
sake of the prize goods which may be taken ; 
but slavery and the slave-trade exist solely for 
the sake of the productions of the slave’s labour. 
In a higher sense then the duty of abstinence 
from these productions is obvious. We hold it 
is a violation of our testimony against war to 
use prize goods; why is it not in a greater 
degree a violation of our testimony against 
slavery to use the goods which are its avails? 
We should be startled at the proposition that a 
Friend was “ in no wise” concerned in support¬ 
ing war, or in countenancing and encouraging 
the evil whilst he freely used its productions. 
Shall we be less startled at the proposition that 
he is not “in any wise concerned in the pur¬ 
chasing, disposing or holding of mankind as 
slaves,” and does “ by no means encourage or 
countenance a traffic in slaves,” whilst he free¬ 
ly uses, buys and sells, that for the procuring 
of which slaves are held and the traffic in slaves 
exist ? 

What will it avail the slaves for us “ to dwell 
under a lively feeling of the wrongs of our fel¬ 
low men, and of the enormity of the system by 
which they are enslaved and oppressed,” if we 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


27 


refuse to bear a practical testimony against 
that system, and on the contrary, continue to 
give it our effective support ? “ Let us beware 

of resting in a bare acknowledgement, even of 
the most sound and consistent principles; ever 
remembering that a profession of the Truth 
will add to our condemnation, if we are not en¬ 
deavouring to live in conformity with it.”— 
Ancient Testimony , 8?c. 

We are told that we shall have no reward for 
attempting to do good in our own wills : and 
it is most uncharitably assumed that those who 
are labouring in this cause are so doing. Would 
it not be as well to inquire what our reward 
will be for persisting to do evil in our own 
wills; and whether, when our understandings 
are convinced, it be not presumptuous to ask a 
further extension of Divine revelation, before 
we cease to be the cause of oppressing our fel¬ 
low-creatures ? “ Shall we continue in sin that 

grace may abound ? God forbid.” To abstain 
from doing wrong is always safe. To do what is 
morally wrong can never be religiously right. 

It is sometimes said, that “ using articles 
raised by slaves may be right for some, and 
wrong for others.” This is clearly impossible, 
for the outward obligations of justice between 
man and man are immutably the same, and are 
equally binding upon all, since all are required 
to “ do justly.” We are far from saying that 
all who use the productions of slavery are ne¬ 
cessarily sinners. Guilt and innocence , depend 
in many instances, on motives and belief; but 


28 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


in all cases right and wrong are determined by 
the unalterable laws of God. If we shut out 
the light and refuse to comply with its requisi¬ 
tions, we sin. When we feel convictions for 
doing wrong, and disobey the manifestations of 
duty, we incur guilt. On these principles, we 
cannot condemn all our worthy ancestors who 
were slave-traders, and slave-holders as sinners; 
although the former committed an act, which is 
now declared piracy and is punishable with 
death by the laws of several nations; nor do 
we condemn as sinners all those who support 
slavery by using its productions, although we 
believe they are committing a grievous wrong. 

Our Discipline condemns the hiring of slaves 
when their wages are paid to those who claim 
the right of ownership over them. (See Disci¬ 
pline, p. 129.) Now let us suppose a slaveholder, 
having a certain number of slaves, has employ¬ 
ment on his farm for only half of them, and one 
of his neighbours, a Friend, hires the other half 
to cultivate his farm and pays their wages to 
their master. Another Friend who has norland, 
and resides a mile, or a hundred miles, or sup¬ 
pose a thousand miles distant, purchases for 
consumption in his family, all the surplus grain, 
meat, potatoes and other produce of the slave¬ 
holder’s farm and pays him for them, either 
personally or by the hands of an agent. Do 
the slaves who work in their master’s field re¬ 
ceive from this Friend the price of their labour? 
Certainly not. It is evident then that in both 
cases the slaveholder receives the price of his 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


29 


slaves’ labour, and it is paid by the two Friends ; 
who thus equally countenance and encourage 
slavery. One purchases the labour of the 
slaves, the other, the produce of their labour; 
if there is any difference it is in word only— 
there can be none in principle. 

Again, our Discipline* prohibits the buying 
and selling of prize-goods. The term prize- 
goods, literally signifying goods taken , is 
usually understood to describe goods taken from 
the rightful owner by force, in war. Our Dis¬ 
cipline so applies it. The morality , ho\yever, 
of the prohibition is not contingent on the last 
circumstance ; but is co-extensive with the for¬ 
cible and wrongful taking of the goods of others. 
If slavery be indeed war, though in disguise, 
then, upon the most rigid construction, are the 
productions of the slaves’ labour prize-goods of 
war, because they are the gains contemplated 
to be obtained by it. It is certain slavery could 
not exist for a moment without the war power. 
It is its breath and life. We may not perhaps 
hear the sound of its drum, or the roar of its 
artillery, but we perceive its presence as cer¬ 
tainly in making and sustaining slavery, as we 
do that of the sun in giving light, though its 
face be obscured by intervening clouds. But not 
to insist on the identity of war and slavery, 

* We fervently desire that the members of our religious 
society may carefully avoid engaging in any trade or busi¬ 
ness promotive of war; sharing or partakingof the spoils 
of war by purchasing or selling prize-goods, &c.— Disci¬ 
pline, p. 145. 


3 


30 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


they are at least collateral wrongs to which the 
same rules morally apply. It is just as proper, 
then, to speak of the prize-goods of slavery, as 
to speak of the prize-goods of war; and alto¬ 
gether proper to consider the disuse of either as 
equally obligatory. The robbery of the hum¬ 
ble and defenceless labourer is not more perfect 
when the product of his/ws/ toil is taken from 
him by war, than when his faculties of labour 
being seized upon, the future production of that 
labour is taken to the use of his oppressor by 
s avery. 

The resemblance between the productions of 
slavery and other violence is not disproved by 
the assertion that “ the labour of the slave is to 
a certain degree voluntary ; because in a like 
degree we voluntarily surrender our purse to 
the bandit, and our goods to the pirate. Nor 
does it avail that the slave receives back a part 
of his labour in the articles necessary to his ani¬ 
mal existence, and to his continued use as a 
machine. For if this be a distinction, then in 
all cases where, from motives of humanity or 
other reasons, the plundered is allowed to take 
back a part of the goods of which he was de¬ 
prived, those retained by the plunderer cease to 
be prize goods. To bring into view the several 
points of parallelism, let us take the case of a 
man who goes to sea with the productions of 
a year’s industry; they are goods in bulk, 
gold in his pocket, and a draft for gold, only 
available at a distant period, in a belt on his 
person. The vessel is taken by a pirate, and a 


PRODUCTIONS OP SLAVERY. 


31 


seizure is made of the goods and gold. Says 
the pirate : “ These are your living ; but I will 
not leave you to starve ; I will support you, 
and as you are a strong and healthy man, and 
will probably live twenty years to come, and 
can make, by your industry, every year as 
great an amount of wealth as I this day seize 
from you, I now, in contemplation of the wealth 
you can thus procure me, seize you to be my 
slave, agreeing to give you the aliment and 
covering necessary to your physical preserva¬ 
tion. ” The goods and gold already taken were 
clearly prize goods, and their use, of course, in¬ 
terdicted to Friends ; but in searching the man 
the draft also is found, and in process of time 
the pirate procures the gold for it. Is that gold 
also prize goods ? Or was only the paper and 
ink, on and with which the draft was written, 
prize goods? If the gold accruing is just as 
much prize-goods as was the gold in hand, is 
not the accruing avails of the man’s labour just 
as much prize-goods as the past avails of it? 
The greater outrage was obviously in robbing 
the man prospectively: does the moral rule 
operate inversely, making it the lesser crime to 
use the fruits of the greater injury ? 

The belt on the person of the man is \\\s phy¬ 
sical power ; the draft is that power going 
into exertion, and the gold is the fruit of that 
exertion at maturity. Every man carries such 
a belt on his person, and the belt is stolen as 
well as the man, whenever he is made a slave. 
Indeed he is made that slave for the purpose of 
stealing the belt. 


32 


CONSIDERATIONS ON THE 


Among other inhibitions aiming to disconnect us 
from all participancy in war, our Discipline 
expresses the fervent “ desire that the members 
of our religious society may carefully avoid en¬ 
gaging in any trade or business promotive of 
war” On the suggest ijns already made it must 
be obvious that the avoidance of any trade or busi¬ 
ness promotive of slavery , is a parallel if not an 
included duty. 

Overlooking the end for which slavery exists, 
it has been contended that however wrongful 
may be the holding of a slave and the using of him 
as an instrument of labour, there is no wrong in 
taking and using the fruits of his coerced labour. 
These, it is said, do not belong to him ; they have 
been grown on his master’s soil, and withal are 
the increase of the earth—the good gifts of heaven 
to man—which we are thankfully to accept and 
use. 

Let it be granted that no man is created to be a 
slave, but that every man is entitled to the proper 
use of himself, and it must follow that the results of 
that use should be accorded to him also : otherwise 
the grant would be a mere nullity. Obviously then, 
the man who is compelled to work for another, the 
fruits of his work being taken to that other’s use, 
is robbed of those results. The aggression, over¬ 
looking the protracted torture of the labourer, is as 
perfect as any act of piracy can be, and is identical 
in spirit with it. 

The gift of “ the increase of the earth” is doubt¬ 
less to all mankind. It is deeper, and higher, and 
stronger, than right conferred by parchment and 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 3 3 

seal. But it is a gift proceeding in an orderly 
manner : first, to the cultivator, and thence through 
him, according to fixed Jaws of moral action, to the 
consumer or user. There is no gift to one of an¬ 
other’s coerced industry, any more than there is of 
his person, or any more than there is a gift of the 
earth’s increase to the robber, who neither toils 
for nor buys it, or to the purchaser from that rob¬ 
ber, though his plea may be that he has “ no con¬ 
trol” of the robbery. 

Conceding, however, to him who holds a patent 
for the soil, all the rights it can justly give him, 
he has no patent to the man, and as much su¬ 
perior as is man to the dust he treads upon, are 
his rights to those of the other when they come in 
collision. 

A faithful testimony has been maintained for 
a century past by many Friends against using the 
productions of slavery; still it is very apparent 
that Friends now generally use them,—with what 
fieedom; under what degree of examination of 
the subject; how much influenced by one looking 
to the example of another; how much by aversion 
to sect or person; how much by connections of 
trade, and considerations of mere convenience, we 
must leave to the decision of the consciences of 
the individuals concerned in this use, under a sense 
of their accountability for this and all other actions 
of their life, which we commend them to cherish. 
That Friends however, should buy and sell such 
productions, and grow rich in the traffic; that they 
shou'd feed upon and clothe themselves unreserved¬ 
ly and sumptuously with what has cost the slave 


CONSIDERATIONS ON TIIE 


34 

his liberty—his life*—his enjoyment of all that 
gives existence its value, or elevates man above the 
beasts which perish, is to us a very painful re¬ 
flection. We believe the Society of Friends is 
called to hold up to the view of the world the true 
principles and testimonies of Christianity—not only 
sound doctrines but pure morals—not only a cor¬ 
rect profession of faith, but a living, practical 
exemplification of it. What its principles are, and 
what should be its corresponding practice in re¬ 
gard to the use of the productions of the slave’s 
coerced labour, may be inferred from its rules and 
advices, already adverted to, respecting slavery 
and war, or which are to be found in the Book of 
Discipline. These emphtically forbid our ‘ ‘do¬ 
ing any thing whereby” the slaves’ “ bondage 
may be prolonged;” our being “ in anywise con¬ 
cerned in holding mankind as slaves,” our using 

* The late Dr. Channing, speaking of the slave-trade 
and slavery of Cuba, said, u We do much to sustain this 
system of horror and blood. The Cuban slave-trade is 
carried on in vessels built especially for this use in Ame¬ 
rican ports. These vessels often sail under the American 
flag, and are aided by American merchantmen, and as is 
feared, by American capital. And this is not all,- the sugar, 
in producing which so many of our fellow-creatures perish 
miserably, is shipped in great quantities to this country. 
We are the customers who stimulate by our demands , this in¬ 
fernal cruelty. And knowing this, shall we become acces¬ 
sories to the murder of our brethren, by continuing to use 
the fruit of the hard-wrung toil which destroys them? 
The sugar of Cuba comes to us drenched with human blood. 
So we ought to see it, and turn from it with loathing. The 
guilt which produces it ought to be put down by the spon¬ 
taneous, instinctive horror of the civilized world. 7 ’ 


PRODUCTIONS OF SLAVERY. 


35 


" any means” which “ encourage or countenance a 
traffic in slaves whilst they afford abundant tes¬ 
timony that “ the purity of our religious profes¬ 
sion” demands our avoidance of every connection 
with violence and wrong. Does our practice in¬ 
dicate different modes of action in the circum¬ 
stances where slavery and ordinary war are alike? 
Does it prolong the bondage of slaves ? Does it 
in any wise hold slaves? Is it a means by which 
a traffic in slaves is encouraged and countenanced? 
Does it hire slaves? Is it in disagreement with a 
high profession of a disconnection from the evils 
which are in the world ? These are questions of 
high importance, which we will do well carefully 
to ponder. 

It is, however, a solemn and incontrovertible 
truth, that the awful complex of crime and injus¬ 
tice which we call slavery, exists solely by con¬ 
sent of the users of slave produce, and would 
cease if the using was withdrawn. It is the 

MARKET FOR SLAVE PRODUCE WHICH MAKES 

slavery ! The question then is simple and the 
answer obvious which regard our duty under this 
circumstance. But simple and obvious as they 
are, many are the interests; many the enjoyments; 
many the prejudices adverse to a just and sponta¬ 
neous decision—each interposing its repective pleas 
for indulgence and exerting its respective power 
of refracting and obscuring the light. 

In the degree, then, that these opposing influ¬ 
ences are powerful, is the duty urgent of exposing 
the pretensions they have set up, and of re-assert¬ 
ing in all brotherly kindness, but with earnestness, 


36 


CONSIDERATIONS, ETC. 


the great yet simple truth, that as slavery owes its 
vitality to the using of the productions of the 
slave’s labour, so such using is necessarily wrong. 

If, in this concern, we “ pursue the course 
which our duty as men and as Christians re¬ 
quires, we may rely on the wisdom and good¬ 
ness of God, who governs all consequences, to re¬ 
ward our endeavours and bless the work of our 
hands.” Let us dismiss all fears that in keeping 
our consciences void of offence toward God and 
toward man, we shall hurt our brother. With 
the same faith in which we inquire, “ who ever 
saw the righteous forsaken, or his seed begging 
bread,” we may also ask, who ever saw the car¬ 
rying out of righteous principles lead to conclu¬ 
sions injurious to humanity? 

In conclusion, we can adopt the language of John 
Woolman: “Such are the purity and certainty of 
[the Lord’s] judgments, that He cannot be partial 
in our favour. In infinite love and goodness He 
hath opened our understandings from one time to 
another concerning our duty towards this peop'e, 
and it is not a time for delay. Should w 7 e now be 
sensible of what He requires of us, and through a 
respect to the private interests of some persons, or 
through a regard to some friendships w 7 hich do not 
stand on an immutable foundation, neglect to do 
our duty in firmness and constancy, still waiting 
for some extraordinary means to bring about 
their deliverance , it may be that God may answer 
us in this matter, by terrible things in righte¬ 
ousness.” 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2010 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-2111 
















